高层建筑AND FIRE RISKS.

高层建筑AND FIRE RISKS.

CHIEF Bonner has more than once protested against the erection of skyscrapers in New York on account of the difficulty of reaching any fire that may break out in the higher stories of such structures. So long as they are merely occupied as offices, it is possible that their dangers are minimized by their fireproof construction (granting for argument's sake that any building can be guaranteed as absolutely fireproof ”); but, as such buildings are now frequently being used for storage warehouses and their rooms are becoming filled—often to repletion—with every kind of goods and merchandise, combustible as well as non-combustible, the perils attendant on such erections are obvious. These risks are increased tenfold when the difficulties of reaching the fire are taken into consideration. The watchman and janitor may be asleep or not to be gotten at, as was the case at the recent fire on the eighth floor of the Astor building on Pine street and Broadway and Wall street; the elevators may refuse to work or, as in the case of that same building, there may be no one on hand to work them in which case the firemen, after having lost time in breaking open the iron entrance doors, may be compelled to drag their heavy hose all the way up several flights of stairs—eight flights in the case of the Astor building fire, and run the chance of being unable to get down again besides. Add to these ordinary dangers that of insufficient water supply—and, even with all New York’s future facilities, the pressure will never be sufficient to deal with the higher stories of these skyscrapers—and the risks are multiplied many fold. It will be said that the owners of these buildings will provide against this last difficulty. As yet, however, this has not been generally done, and where it has been attempted, success has by no means been the outcome ; nor can it be guaranteed that any sprinkling system or any other mechanical devices, however theoretically perfect, shall work to order just when they are most needed. Past experience has been sometimes very much the other way either the machinery has refused to act or the hose suppliedbythe owners—in itself toooftenof the cheapest quality—will as likely as not burst just at a critical moment. What steps should be taken (supposing the law prescribes no height-limit to such structures) to render them less hazardous risks from an insurance standpoint,and,in the interests of the firemen,to minimize the latter’s chances of being killed from their collapse or caught like rats in a trap and smothered to death by smoke or burned to a crisp in the top floors, owing to the failure of the elevators to work or the standpipes to operate, is a question for the future. Common sense would seem to demand some effective legislation on the subject.

CHIEF Bonner has more than once protested against the erection of skyscrapers in New York on account of the difficulty of reaching any fire that may break out in the higher stories of such structures. So long as they are merely occupied as offices, it is possible that their dangers are minimized by their fireproof construction (granting for argument's sake that any building can be guaranteed as absolutely fireproof ”); but, as such buildings are now frequently being used for storage warehouses and their rooms are becoming filled—often to repletion—with every kind of goods and merchandise, combustible as well as non-combustible, the perils attendant on such erections are obvious. These risks are increased tenfold when the difficulties of reaching the fire are taken into consideration. The watchman and janitor may be asleep or not to be gotten at, as was the case at the recent fire on the eighth floor of the Astor building on Pine street and Broadway and Wall street; the elevators may refuse to work or, as in the case of that same building, there may be no one on hand to work them in which case the firemen, after having lost time in breaking open the iron entrance doors, may be compelled to drag their heavy hose all the way up several flights of stairs—eight flights in the case of the Astor building fire, and run the chance of being unable to get down again besides. Add to these ordinary dangers that of insufficient water supply—and, even with all New York’s future facilities, the pressure will never be sufficient to deal with the higher stories of these skyscrapers—and the risks are multiplied many fold. It will be said that the owners of these buildings will provide against this last difficulty. As yet, however, this has not been generally done, and where it has been attempted, success has by no means been the outcome ; nor can it be guaranteed that any sprinkling system or any other mechanical devices, however theoretically perfect, shall work to order just when they are most needed. Past experience has been sometimes very much the other way either the machinery has refused to act or the hose suppliedbythe owners—in itself toooftenof the cheapest quality—will as likely as not burst just at a critical moment. What steps should be taken (supposing the law prescribes no height-limit to such structures) to render them less hazardous risks from an insurance standpoint,and,in the interests of the firemen,to minimize the latter’s chances of being killed from their collapse or caught like rats in a trap and smothered to death by smoke or burned to a crisp in the top floors, owing to the failure of the elevators to work or the standpipes to operate, is a question for the future. Common sense would seem to demand some effective legislation on the subject.